In the spirit of insisting that everything be "gender neutral" I propose JLemmerman change her name. It's just not gender neutral as apparently now the BOA needs to be. Or so say the City Hall mouth pieces as usual.
It would be nice if they fixed the problems with charter while they're playing the gender game. Open up a real charter discussion before they petition the legislature to make a change.
Make no mistake about it; the militant liberals are here in Melrose and have established a foothold. Unless longstanding Melrose residents want to see this place turn into Cambridge; it is time to push back on nonsense initiatives like these.
This whole thing is nonsensical. Melrose shouldn't even be a city in the first place. This PC crap is way out of control.
I'm rally glad that we live in a balanced city which recognizes both sexes - Mel-Rose.
If it is so nonsensical and trivial, why do have to be such an a-- about it? Oh, I forgot, you are only going to go kicking and screaming into the new century which is now over a decade old. Pathetic.
If the new century means drowning in PC bull$hit, you're welcome to it. I suppose you have a BLM sign on your lawn and you want to let all the Syrian refugees in too, right?
If one the security checks miss puts a bomb under your car, will you still feel the same way? You PC knuckleheads have absolutely no idea what goes on in the real world.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Nonsensical. The never-ending barrage of political correctness is pretty silly, and I also agree that those who most vociferously spout PC speak appear to have no idea what goes on in the real world. I personally don't care if you call them aldermen, councilors, or that gaggle of idiots, which on reflection might be the most accurate.
This is the whole post from Ridiculous: "If the new century means drowning in PC bull$hit, you're welcome to it. I suppose you have a BLM sign on your lawn and you want to let all the Syrian refugees in too, right? If one" (ed: of the Syrians) "the security checks miss puts a bomb under your car, will you still feel the same way? You PC knuckleheads have absolutely no idea what goes on in the real world."
You should read a little more carefully, since Ridiculous was making a point about runaway PC, not whatever stupid name some one wants to call the elected ward representatives.
He or she is also right that Melrose should not be a City. At it's size and population, it should be a town. Given what's been going on in Melrose recently, having town meeting being able to vote on every single policy decision and budget line item seems like a good idea to me, and Melrose is not too big to make that process unwieldy. There is zero benefit to Melrose taxpayers having Melrose be a city. In fact, it takes all power away from taxpayers and gives it to the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, and the School Committee. That's great if those people are honorable and trustworthy. Unfortunately the very last thing I'd call 90% of those people in Melrose is honorable and trustworthy, and recent events bear that out.
I find the screen name of "Militantly Decent Human" to be offensive. Why do you refer to a homo sapien as a HuMAN? Can't you find a more gender neutral term? This is highly offensive. Please be more considerate when posting.
Then the word woMAN must drive you nuts!
Pete Mortimer is at it again, acting like a total a-hole to Melrose Residents at the Alderman's meeting in order to protect the Mayor. Some will fight tooth and nail to protect their and the Mayor's interests in order to keep the current fiefdom in place to the detriment of the taxpayer and voters. Loser.
What did Mortimer do?
Great debate on this subject last night. The proponents continually mention that only 2 other cities use the term Alderman. First off, that is incorrect. Somerville, Woburn and Newton all use Alderman. There may be others, I just got those from a 30 second Google search. Secondly, Melrose is one of the smaller cities in the Commonwealth. From a size perspective, we are more appropriately compared with towns as opposed to big cities; however, as "Commonwealth" is unique (along with Virginia) among the 48 other "States"; our little "city" is unique among other "towns."
Alderman Forbes alluded to the government structure in other surrounding towns. Although it is a different governing structure; many towns in the Commonwealth elect "Selectmen." That point was either missed or intentionally omitted by the proponents of this change. If you look at the traditional Middlesex league you will see the following:
These towns elect "Selectmen":
Melrose and Woburn elect "Alderman"
Only Watertown elects "Councilors"
Clearly Melrose is not off the mark and the term "Alderman" is distinguishing our governance style from those peer towns that elect "Selectmen."
Again, great job to all Alderman, in particular Alderman Conn who correctly pointed out that this motion was about someone's perception that the term "Alderman" was offensive. All the other points raised where red herrings.
Lastly, among the 4 public speakers last night; one identified herself as being originally from New York and the other told us he has lived in Melrose for a year and a half. The recent arrival; despite his short time here proposed to tell the Alderman how confused Melrose citizens were about the role of the Alderman and how much more "transparent" things would be if we changed to Councilor. As well spoken as he was; perhaps he should take more time to observe the local governance in Melrose and also speak to more, life-long citizens before telling us how this great city should be run.
Again, congratulations to all Aldermen for a great discussion.
I am glad that the term "ALDERMAN" will remain.
As a resident of close to 60 years why is it wrong to have a little bit
of tradition remain.
For those that wanted the name change, Melrose is a city with a Board of
Alderman. That's it.
Please put this order to rest and focus on the "IMPORTANT ISSUES"
Have they taken up installing transgender bathrooms at city hall yet? It really gets confusing for some us as to what bathroom to go into to. Can I get some help here?
Actually, I'm kind of glad this got the play it did, because what it ultimately morphed into was an admission that the current Charter is a seriously flawed document concocted by a committee handpicked by the Mayor to come up with a document that did exactly what the Mayor wanted it to do, and that any discussion of Charter amendment ought to address the entire document with an eye towards correcting ALL the errors contained in it.
Especially egregious to me is the provision that excludes any Mayor from having any outside business interest. That's in there specifically to eliminate candidates for Mayor who may pose a threat to the current Mayor's rice bowl.
I'd have given a week's pay to be a fly on the wall in the Mayor's office when he got in there this morning after hearing that. Is it really remotely possible that the B of A is finally waking up to the the fact that they - and the rest of the City - was completely snookered when this Charter was drafted, and that really, it serves the interests of only one person?
Let the games begin!
It's also significant that JL and her crew (RD et al) tried to ram this through bypassing a real public process that would have involved the full citizenry and a vote, something that should happen when they put forward a vastly fixed charter, eliminating the mayor from the SC, fixing the inexcusable typos, eliminating the clauses around requirements for mayoral position, possibly putting in term limits, etc. Van Campen was utterly predictable in his claim that this process was totally "legal" (as if anyone in Melrose should believe his claptrap; he has told school officials that everything they are doing is absolutely "legal," too, and we can see what that has wrought). He was of course in favor of this private little deal that shut the public out of the loop, as per his usual MO. Funny to hear the rambling incoherent rants of various BOA members as they defended the ever-precious "Melrose tradition," provincial small-minded fools that they are. By accident several touched on the real issues of the disgrace of a city charter as is now on the books. Frank was truly pathetic in his rambling. MB Crocodile Tears ("I Like peacocks") was nauseating, as per usual, in her treacle claims about how she "sees clearly" both sides (oh sure, like she "sees" everything, through those pink butterfly how-many-ways-can-I-suck-up-to-Rob barf-bucket glasses in which she "sees" everything else. Peter was the a$$hat he always is, and thensome.
Water/Sewer rates came up again, and only Don and Monica addressed the continued disgrace and folly of the rest of them in their putting forward more of the Retroactive Billing that simply cannot even be legal, no matter how many ways "Vanny" tries to say it is (it simply cannot be!). The BOA as a whole should be ashamed of itself for continuing forward with an equally flawed tiered rate system and ILLEGAL Retroactive Billing practices!
Dolan was against this you noob!
He was - because the last thing he wanted was for any discussion of amending the charter, knowing that it could lead to mention of the "nobody can be Mayor but me" clause or the four year term. Oops!
Ummmm, did you see GM speaking out in favor of this? Do you really think GM is and Dolan are on the same page?
This is typical MM nonsense. Every event of decision is interpreted to be an ominous sign for Dolan. Meanwhile, he has been in office for years; gets re-elected by a landslide each time; recently got a raise that was overwhelmingly supported by the citizen of Melrose and the value of our real estate under his tenure has risen faster than any other city or town in the country. Don't buy the nonsense. Citizens of Melrose love having Dolan as Mayor and we don't want a part-time Mayor taking over any time soon.
The Charter is a mess and needs to be fixed. The reason no one runs against Dolan is very definitely NOT because everyone is thrilled with his performance and wants him in that spot as a lifer. It's because the charter is rigged so that only an unqualified unemployed person could afford to run for this position. And the argument about "not wanting a part-time mayor" is rubbish. Has anyone ever questioned how RD managed to get a master's degree while being supposedly a full-time mayor?
The charter is full of mistakes, both substantively and in presentation (typos for which there are no excuse whatsoever and point to the basic unprofessionalism of those creating this mess!). There is no Recall Provision. Wonder why? Just look at the make-up of both boards of governance, starting with Morty there, who should have been removed a long time ago. There are no term limits, something else desperately needed.
Dolan earned his Masters in 1998 and was elected in the 2001 election.
I've been right here and I was in the Chamber a few years ago supporting the pay raise for the Mayor's position along with most of of the City of Melrose. By the way, the Board of AlderMEN passed the motion and agreed to give the Mayor the raise.
Also, I have been around long enough to remember that he was voted into office by a single vote. Literally 1 vote. He has since won re-election handily.
Do a google search on him. The Mayor is a graduate of Fordham university. A great school. He had a full time job outside of politics as he served time on the SC and Board of Aldermen in Melrose then moved into the full time role as Mayor when he won election. I'd say that shows a serious commitment to the residents of this city.
All of this nonosense about having to change the charter to get candidates is just that, pure nonsense. That is being driven be people that don't want to commit to the office. We don't want or need a part time Mayor in this city. If someone can't commit to the position, we don't want them. Period.
BTW, Dolan is recognized beyond the city borders as he was twice elected as President of the MA Mayor's association.
We have a great history and tradition of full time Mayors in this city an Dolan is and will continue to be part of that.
Everything else is just melrosemessages fiction.
Hey U noob - what rock did you come out from under - or should I say what office at city hall do you work?
During the last election, there were about 30% blank ballots while the Mayor was the only one on the ballot - not a great endorsement for our great Mayor!
Also, concerning the past charter change - requiring a candidate to give up his outside business interests - has no impact on those who might want to run is just delusional and shows how much you are in the tank for the Mayor. I have personally talked to long time residents who said that this charter requirement is exactly what dissuades them from running.
And on the issue of a full time Mayor - with a community of less 30k people with a footprint of less than 5 square miles - can certainly be governed by less than a full time Mayor - and we have had many of these types of Mayors in the past 40 years since I have lived here. Let's be honest - the Mayor spends alot of his time promoting himself and what he does for the city as well as spending city monies doing this. Just look at all his PR promotions and blogs he has his staff send out each day!
Of all of the frauds perpetrated by the Bozo Brigade on Melrose Messages the "Charter" issue on the position of Mayor is the biggest one. You could put three of you losers together and you still wouldn't be making $125,000. You all live in falling down houses in dire need of a paint job and must be allergic to your lawnmower. The Alderwoman MM has no restrictions on running...she has run for public office for positions that pay half as much. She's the republican darling and the Bozo Brigade spokesperson. Why won't she run? Same 2 reasons no one else has. 1) The large majority of Melrose voters think Dolan is doing a great job. 2) The ones that don't, including MM, would get their @sses kicked in an election and they know it. Take your 30% blank argument down the street while you're honking your nose and tripping over you rubber feet. If that's all you got one thing is certain. Dolan is King for as long as he chooses, raking in more money than you will ever see. In the next election Dolan will run unopposed, he will win, and you ignorant morons will do the only thing you know how to do...nothing.
Wow - Clown Patrol was let out early from city hall - because we know that the Mayor won't let anyone log into melrosemessages at work!
Heard through the rumor mill that the Mayor is collecting contributions to have a life-size sculpture of himself made in bronze and placed in front of city hall - the problem is - there is not enough room in front of city hall for the statue! This is what happens when your ego exceeds your physical presence.
2nd biggest fraud perpetrated by the bozo brigade is that if you think the clowns on this site are a pack of losers you must work for the City. The reality is the entire group of bozos could fit in a phone both and Dolan has had the overwhelming support of this community since he kicked Balfour's ass and sent the pasta club running for the hills. Still waiting for the big coalition meeting to take back Melrose. Why don't you morons all dress up in your clown outfits for the Victorian Fair and have a parade down Main Street. Set up a booth and see if you can 50 signatures for charter reform, find a candidate to run for alderman/school committee or take on the Mayor.It will give you an excuse not to mow your lawns. You don't need a crystal ball to see where that will go. Honk, Honk see you at the Circus.
Control Patrol; stop kidding yourself. You continue to make a fool of yourself, attacking your mythical "clowns" living in shacks on the edge of town every time someone posts some basic and supportable fact. Fact One: There is wide spread dissatisfaction with the Mayor. When a Mayor runs unopposed and a third of those voting can't even stand to check his name off on the ballot (why wouldn't they otherwise?), they are sending a strong message of dissatisfaction. Fact Two: When his number one initiative, the override, is shot down two to one, the voters are sending a strong message of dissatisfaction. Live with it.
Ahhh...Waka, Waka, Waka
The one vote election Dolan won over Connelly is when his father, Peter had a meltdown outside the election office at City Hall. The police had to intervene and put the votes under lock and key with armed guard. RD learned anger management from his father.
That's exactly right. In addition, there was a ballot that came back from a polling place outside the locked ballot box, which caused another obvious problem when it turned out Robbie won by one vote. The cop on duty immediately realized the there was a big problem, secured all the ballots and called the Chief in. Peter made a total a$$ of himself, and came pretty close to getting himself arrested.
Then the Chief called in the Staties to secure the ballots until a recount took place. They sat overnight in the vault in City Hall's basement guarded by two troopers - a smart move, because there were two or three Melrose officers who were close to Robbie, and that removed even the appearance of any possible impropriety.
That incident was the beginning of Robbie's hatred of the Police Department. It wasn't long after that that the Chief's contract was "non-renewed", and he's been on their case ever since - remember the phony accusations of overtime abuses and of people calling in sick to work details which turned out to be a complete lie? And don't even get started with that stupid "police study", which showed that most of the issues could be tracked directly back to insufficient manpower. Guess who controls that?
Absolutely Corrects summation is revisionist history at its best. The facts are that the room was locked and the police got involved because Dick Lyons was Mayor, the police chief was his guy, and his hand picked successor, Rich Connolly, lost by 1 vote. Lyons insisted on a recount. Everything that happened after that is automatic in a recount situation. From that moment it grew to 11 votes and the rest is history. Slandering Peter Dolan's name years after his death just proves what an ignorant moron Absolutely Correct is. Peter was always a gentleman, and was that night.
Just thought I would add this on for good measure.......
A Police Department is hereby established which shall consist of a Chief, one prosecutor, five Lieutenants, one inspector with the rank of Sergeant, eight Sergeants, three inspectors with the rank of patrolman and 44 patrolmen. Of the five Lieutenant positions, one shall remain unfilled and unfunded until such time as a Police Chief, having the rank of Lieutenant when he or she became Chief, resigns or is terminated as Police Chief and elects to return to his or her prior position as a Lieutenant.
(Rev. Ords. 1976, § 16-1; Ord. No. 21002, 7-20-1981; Rev. Ords. 1989, § 13-1; Ord. No. 99-251, 5-17-1999)
This is off of the Melrose City Ordnance page. 63 TOTAL Officers is what is called for. We are currently at 46. 17 Officers short. You decide.
Revisionist History is completely full of $hit, and obviously wasn't anywhere near the election office that night. I was.
The election office door was wide open until Peter went off the rails and caused such a commotion the election commissioner and the cop on duty had to close it because the commotion was disrupting the process. He was told as plainly as possible that if he didn't quiet down he would be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct. In case you don't know, only two people can order a cop to make an arrest - a judge, or the head of a polling place. It was the cop who convinced the election commissioner that to do that might be "counterproductive" and cause even more controversy.
The police "got involved" because there was one stationed there - there always is. The cop was summoned into the election office from the aldermanic chamber when the single ballot was discovered to have come back NOT locked in the box like it was supposed to be - if memory serves, it was from the Winthrop School polling place. That was while the count was still taking place. It had nothing to do with Lyons or the Police Chief until after the total count was discovered to be a one vote victory for Rob. That's when it became clear that single "rogue" ballot might have an enormous impact, and that's what set Peter off, and that's when the cop decided to summon the Chief - he realized there might be a big problem and he kicked it upstairs, as he should have.
And NOT everything that happened after that is automatic in a recount scenario. Ordinarily it would be the local PD securing and guarding the ballots until a recount. In this case, because Peter publicly accused the PD of being in Lyons' "pocket", the Chief summoned the Staties for that task, exactly the correct thing to do. In a case like that, it's very important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially given Peter's accusations, and that there were several cops that Rob was close to. It was exactly the right thing to do.
No one is "slandering" Peter. He did what he did and said what he said in front of 100 witnesses, and he was anything but a gentleman. I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but it's the truth, not slander. In fact, it was Rob who acted like a gentleman, and it was Rob who managed to calm Peter down, avoiding what might have been an even uglier incident.
You need to get your facts straight. Peter may well have been a gentleman on most occasions, but on that occasion he most assuredly was not. An abberation maybe, but what happened is what happened.
Absolutely Correct's account of the events of that evening is absolutely correct.
As to Revisionist History's contention that it was Lyons who insisted on a recount, Mass Law states: "Candidates for town or county office may initiate a recount by petitioning their city or town clerk. Only candidates for an office to be recounted may petition for a recount. Any registered voter of the city or town may petition for a recount of a ballot question only."
I wonder if Revisionist History can conceive of a circumstance when the losing candidate would not ask for a recount in a one vote result. As was demonstrated in this case, the original count was indeed wrong - by a factor of 10.
As to that single unsecured ballot - it turned out the ballot was one that contained a mistake by a voter, and had been replaced by another ballot provided at the polling place when the mistake was made. It was not a valid ballot and was never included in the final tally, and the poll warden mistakenly believed it should not have been included in the lock box. It turned out to be a total non-issue.
Full Blown Bozo alert activated on this string. We have a couple of full fledged clowns debating events of a night that occurred over 14 years ago. Lyons and the Pasta boys lost, end of story. Then Dolan smoked Balfour, and the rest is history. There are 125,000 reasons for you clowns to come up with a candidate to run against Dolan at the next election...stop talking about the past. Stop talking about blank votes...don't you losers know that they don't count the blanks, only the actual votes. What a bunch of f*cking cry babies. This should be easy, find a candidate to run, or STFU.
WTF is your major malfunction, numbnuts? If you don't want to take part in a discussion, then don't. Who are you to tell anyone to STFU? All your telling people what they can think or what they can say is getting really tiresome. You really are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Your bull$hit is right out of the Dolan political playbook. Sorry if the truth hurts, a$$wipe. It must be hard to breath with your face stuffed up Robbie's butt.
Ahhh...Waka, waka, waka...and boo Yah! And STFU
Yeah, you heard me.
Will you tell me to STFU to my face? Or are you a pu$$y as well as a bloviating scumbag? F*** off, maggot.